Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut may be pushed to 2022 by slow FAA reviews

Published

on

In a rare sign of material progress, SpaceX and the FAA have finally released what is known as a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the company’s South Texas Starship launch plans.

Set to be the largest and most powerful rocket in spaceflight history when it first begins orbital launches, the process of acquiring permission to launch Starship and its Super Heavy booster out of the wetlands of the South Texas coast was never going to be easy. The Boca Chica site SpaceX ultimately settled on for its first private launch facilities – initially meant for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy but later dedicated to BFR (now Starship) – is simultaneously surrounded by sensitive coastal habitats populated by several threatened or endangered species and situated mere miles as the crow flies from a city whose temporary population oscillates from a few thousand to tens of thousands.

Reception and analysis of the draft and its timing have been mixed. On one hand, SpaceX’s draft EA – completed with oversight from the FAA and help from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – gives a number of reasons for optimism. In a sign that SpaceX is taking a pragmatic approach to the inevitable environmental review and launch license approval hurdles standing in front of orbital South Texas Starship launches, the company has actually pursued what is known as a “programmatic environmental assessment” (PEA).

Most importantly, that means that SpaceX’s Starbase PEA – if approved – will be more like a foundation or stepping stone that should make it easier to start small and methodically expand the scope and nature of the company’s plans for Boca Chica. Along those lines, as part of Starbase’s first dedicated environmental assessment, SpaceX has proposed a maximum of 23 flight operations annually while Starship is still in the development phase, including up to 20 suborbital Starship test flights and 3 orbital launches (or Super Heavy hops). Once SpaceX has worked out enough kinks for slightly more confident Starship operations, the company would enter an “operational phase” that would allow for as many as five suborbital Starship launches and five orbital Starship launches, as well as ship and booster landings back on land after all 10 possible launches.

SpaceX’s “proposed annual [Starship] operations” under the initial PEA.

In other words, SpaceX’s initial draft PEA is extremely conservative, requesting permission for what amounts to a bare minimum concept of operations for orbital Starship launches. At a maximum of 3-5 orbital launches per year, a PEA and subsequent launch license approved as-is would likely give SpaceX just enough slack to perform basic Earth orbit launches and no more than one or two orbital refilling tests per year. However, as an example, a five-launch maximum would almost entirely prevent SpaceX from launching Starship to Mars, the Moon, and maybe even high-energy Earth orbits without using all of its annual launch allotments on a single mission.

Perhaps most importantly, the draft PEA as proposed would unequivocally prevent SpaceX from performing the NASA Human Lander System (HLS) Moon landings it received an almost $3 billion contract to complete. Each HLS Starship Moon landing is expected to require anywhere from 10-16 launches to deliver a depot ship, HLS lander, and ~1200 tons of propellant to orbit. However, in terms of SpaceX’s prospects of developing Starship as quickly as possible, that’s actually a good thing. Above all else, SpaceX’s slimmed-down draft PEA should be far easier for the FAA to approve than a PEA pursuing permission for Starship’s ultimate ambitions – dozens to hundreds of launches annually – from the beginning. In theory, with this barebones PEA approved, SpaceX would then be able to build off the foundation with additional environmental assessments – like, for example, of expanding Starship’s maximum launch cadence.

Advertisement
-->

Of course, SpaceX first needs the FAA turn this first draft PEA into a favorable environmental assessment (not a guarantee) before any of the above starts to matter. Based on the content of the draft itself and associated appendixes, SpaceX appears to have a decent shot at receiving a “finding of no significant impact (FONSI)” or “mitigated FONSI” determination. However, SpaceX began the process of creating that draft as far back as mid-2020, followed by an FAA announcement in November 2020. The implication is that the FAA managed to drag out a draft release process that some have estimated should have taken 3-4 months into an arduous 10-15 month ordeal.

Combined with the uphill battle it’s starting to look like SpaceX will have to wage for an orbital Starship launch license in South Texas, it’s looking increasingly likely that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase will be technically ready for orbital launch tests well before the FAA is ready to approve or license them. Barring delays, the public now has until mid-October to read and comment on SpaceX’s draft PEA, after which the FAA and SpaceX will review those comments and hopefully turn the draft into a completed review. Even if the FAA were to somehow take just two months to return a best-case FONSI, clearing Starbase of environmental launch hurdles, it’s hard to imagine that the agency could then turn around and approve an orbital Starship launch license – or even a one-off experimental permit – in the last few weeks of 2021.

Ultimately, that means that nothing short of a minor miracle is likely to prevent the FAA’s environmental review and licensing delays from directly delaying Starship’s orbital launch debut. There is at least a chance that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase’s orbital launch site wont be ready for orbital launches by the end of the year, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that all three won’t be proof tested, qualified, and ready for action just a month or two from now. For the time being, we’ll just have to wait and see where the cards fall.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Giga Berlin draws “red line” over IG Metall union’s 35-hour week demands

Factory manager André Thierig has drawn a “red line” against reducing Giga Berlin’s workweek to 35 hours, while highlighting that Tesla has actually increased its workers’ salaries more substantially than other carmakers in the country.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla Giga Berlin has found itself in a new labor dispute in Germany, where union IG Metall is pushing for adoption of a collective agreement to boost wages and implement changes, such as a 35-hour workweek. 

In a comment, Giga Berlin manager André Thierig drew a “red line” against reducing Giga Berlin’s workweek to 35 hours, while highlighting that Tesla has actually increased its workers’ salaries more substantially than other carmakers in the country.

Tesla factory manager’s “red line”

Tesla Germany is expected to hold a works council election in 2026, which André Thierig considers very important. As per the Giga Berlin plant manager, Giga Berlin’s plant expansion plans might be put on hold if the election favors the union. He also spoke against some of the changes that IG Metall is seeking to implement in the factory, like a 35-hour week, as noted in an rbb24 report. 

“The discussion about a 35-hour week is a red line for me. We will not cross it,” Theirig said.  

“(The election) will determine whether we can continue our successful path in the future in an independent, flexible, and unbureaucratic manner. Personally, I cannot imagine that the decision-makers in the USA will continue to push ahead with the factory expansion if the election results favor IG Metall.”

Advertisement
-->

Giga Berlin’s wage increase

IG Metall district manager Jan Otto told the German news agency DPA that without a collective agreement, Tesla’s wages remain significantly below levels at other German car factories. He noted the company excuses this by referencing its lowest pay grade, but added: “The two lowest pay grades are not even used in car factories.”

In response, Tesla noted that it has raised the wages of Gigafactory Berlin’s workers more than their German competitors. Thierig noted that with a collective agreement, Giga Berlin’s workers would have seen a 2% wage increase this year. But thanks to Tesla not being unionized, Gigafactory Berlin workers were able to receive a 4% increase, as noted in a CarUp report. 

“There was a wage increase of 2% this year in the current collective agreement. Because we are in a different economic situation than the industry as a whole, we were able to double the wages – by 4%. Since production started, this corresponds to a wage increase of more than 25% in less than four years,” Thierig stated. 

Continue Reading

News

Tesla is seeing a lot of momentum from young Koreans in their 20s-30s: report

From January to November, young buyers purchased over 21,000 Teslas, putting it far ahead of fellow imported rivals like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.

Published

on

Tesla has captured the hearts of South Korea’s 20s-30s demographic, emerging as the group’s top-selling imported car brand in 2025. From January to November, young buyers purchased over 21,000 Teslas, putting it far ahead of fellow imported rivals like BMW and Mercedes-Benz. 

Industry experts cited by The Economist attributed this “Tesla frenzy” to fandom culture, where buyers prioritize the brand over traditional car attributes, similar to snapping up the latest iPhone.

Model Y dominates among young buyers

Data from the Korea Imported Automobile Association showed that Tesla sold 21,757 vehicles to the 20s-30s demographic through November, compared to BMW’s 13,666 and Mercedes-Benz’s 6,983. The Model Y led the list overwhelmingly, with variants like the standard and Long Range models topping purchases for both young men and women.

Young men bought around 16,000 Teslas, mostly Model Y (over 15,000 units), followed by Model 3. Young women followed a similar pattern, favoring Model Y (3,888 units) and Model 3 (1,083 units). The Cybertruck saw minimal sales in this group.

The Model Y’s appeal lies in its family-friendly SUV design, 400-500 km range, quick acceleration, and spacious cargo, which is ideal for commuting and leisure. The Model 3, on the other hand, serves as an accessible entry point with lower pricing, which is valuable considering the country’s EV subsidies.

Advertisement
-->

The Tesla boom

Experts described Tesla’s popularity as “fandom culture,” where young buyers embrace the brand despite criticisms from skeptics. Professor Lee Ho-geun called Tesla a “typical early adopter brand,” comparing purchases to iPhones.

Professor Kim Pil-soo noted that young people view Tesla more as a gadget than a car, and they are likely drawn by marketing, subsidies, and perceived value. They also tend to overlook news of numerous recalls, which are mostly over-the-air software updates, and controversies tied to the company.

Tesla’s position as Korea’s top import for 2025 seems secured. As noted by the publication, Tesla’s December sales figures have not been reported yet, but market analysts have suggested that Tesla has all but secured the top spot among the country’s imported cars this year. 

Continue Reading

News

Tesla FSD fleet is nearing 7 billion total miles, including 2.5 billion city miles

As can be seen on Tesla’s official FSD webpage, vehicles equipped with the system have now navigated over 6.99 billion miles.

Published

on

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) fleet is closing in on almost 7 billion total miles driven, as per data posted by the company on its official FSD webpage. 

These figures hint at the massive scale of data fueling Tesla’s rapid FSD improvements, which have been quite notable as of late.

FSD mileage milestones

As can be seen on Tesla’s official FSD webpage, vehicles equipped with the system have now navigated over 6.99 billion miles. Tesla owner and avid FSD tester Whole Mars Catalog also shared a screenshot indicating that from the nearly 7 billion miles traveled by the FSD fleet, more than 2.5 billion miles were driven inside cities. 

City miles are particularly valuable for complex urban scenarios like unprotected turns, pedestrian interactions, and traffic lights. This is also the difference-maker for FSD, as only complex solutions, such as Waymo’s self-driving taxis, operate similarly on inner-city streets. And even then, incidents such as the San Francisco blackouts have proven challenging for sensor-rich vehicles like Waymos. 

Tesla’s data edge

Tesla has a number of advantages in the autonomous vehicle sector, one of which is the size of its fleet and the number of vehicles training FSD on real-world roads. Tesla’s nearly 7 billion FSD miles then allow the company to roll out updates that make its vehicles behave like they are being driven by experienced drivers, even if they are operating on their own. 

Advertisement
-->

So notable are Tesla’s improvements to FSD that NVIDIA Director of Robotics Jim Fan, after experiencing FSD v14, noted that the system is the first AI that passes what he described as a “Physical Turing Test.” 

“Despite knowing exactly how robot learning works, I still find it magical watching the steering wheel turn by itself. First it feels surreal, next it becomes routine. Then, like the smartphone, taking it away actively hurts. This is how humanity gets rewired and glued to god-like technologies,” Fan wrote in a post on X. 

Continue Reading